# Protocol decentralization

`kaal:entity:protocol-decentralization`

**Status.** derived

This node is assembled mechanically from the 4 claims that carry the concept tag `protocol-decentralization`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself.

## Every claim under this term

4 claims across 3 works, 2021 to 2021.

**2021**

- [3782191-031](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782191-031) [condition/argued] -- At least some level of protocol centralization is generally required for group harmony and efficiency, and although power decentralization is conceptually independent of protocol decentralization, power determines how protocol is amended and enforced.
  > Generally, at least some level of protocol centralization is required for group harmony and efficiency.
  Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Preface to (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782191
- [3782192-029](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782192-029) [empirical/asserted] -- Ancient Egypt and China remained remarkably stable for thousands of years because of the protocol decentralization fostered by their Rule of Virtue legal systems.
  > An- cient Egypt and China were remarkably stable for thousands of years due to the pro- tocol decentralization fostered by their Rule of Virtue legal system.
  Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Introduction to Decentralization (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782192
- [3782193-004](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782193-004) [mechanism/argued] -- The unusual multi-millennial stability of Ancient Egypt and Imperial China, despite their strong political hierarchies, is explained by protocol decentralization rather than by any feature of their political centralization.
  > Ancient Egypt and Imperial China were relatively stable for millennia despite strong political hierarchies. What distinguished these civilizations from the many others that rose and fell around them? Their stability was due to protocol decentralization.
  Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Historical Sketches of Centralization vs. Decentralization (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782193
- [3782193-022](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782193-022) [mechanism/argued] -- When a group has more unity in its values it can tolerate less rigidity in its legal protocols, so greater value centralization permits greater protocol decentralization, which in turn produces greater long-term stability.
  > In general, the lesson of clans versus corporations is that when a group has more unity in their values, then they can have less rigidity in their legal protocols. So greater value centralization allows greater protocol decentralization which leads to greater long-term stability.
  Craig Calcaterra, Wulf A. Kaal, Historical Sketches of Centralization vs. Decentralization (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3782193

## Verify

Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust.

    curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/protocol-decentralization.md | sha256sum

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.